Contents

@CodeCat: Re "The template should collapse the descendants tree under certain circumstances, particularly when it's rather long. This helps with keeping an overview and avoids the descendant lists becoming too long on the transcluding page (particularly PIE).", shouldn't we use {{see desc}} instead when it would become rather long? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea is to make {{see desc}} unnecessary while still keeping the length manageable. —CodeCat 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: In that case redirect to see desc if more than 10 lines? --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually really happy it doesn't collapse. I think there are some places {{desctree}} works and others where {{see desc}} is the best choice. I prefer using {{see desc}} on PIE entries and for borrowing descendants. --Victar (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Right now it's a bit annoying that if I want to list alternatives for an entry, I have to list them before the {{desctree}}, as opposed to order of commonality, etc., as I normally would, i.e. Latin: {{l|la|elmus}}, {{l|la|hermus}}, {{desctree|la|helmus}}. The solution that comes to mind is to have an |altN= parameter, i.e. Latin: {{desctree|la|helmus|alt1=elmus|alt2=hermus}}.

Done: Sometimes I'd like to be able to add a qualifier after the {{desctree}} on the same line, but instead it sends to the bottom of the list, i.e. Vulgar Latin: {{desctree|la|*scuma}}{{q|merger with Latin spūma}}. It would be great if a |q= parameter could be added to accommodate this, i.e. Vulgar Latin: {{desctree|la|*scuma|q=merger with Latin {{l|la|spūma}}}}.

Done: I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to include lead text with the language name, like we do with {{cog}} and {{desc}}, especially if we get the order issue resolved. I realize that would break all the current uses, but perhaps we could run a script first to add |notext=1 them all. Alternatively, if we can't get the order issue resolved, maybe a |text=1 option would be better.

This is already mentioned on the template page, but we really need a working |id= parameter for entries with multiple descendant trees.

Done: Descendant trees with columns, i.e. {{top2}}, break {{desctree}}, so that needs fixing as well, most easily by simply filtering them out.

How about programming the alternative forms into the descendant tree data module, so that when you type {{desctree|la|helmus}}, it will automatically display the alternative forms {{l|la|hermus}} and {{l|la|elmus}}? — Eru·tuon 04:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... never mind. I was thinking of the other module that uses a data module listing the descendants. Since this grabs the forms from the entries, perhaps we could get the alternative forms from the Alternative forms section and display them somehow. — Eru·tuon 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Could you point to an entry in which the problem related to alternative forms has cropped up? Are you referring to *helm, or somewhere else? — Eru·tuon 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, that helps me understand. Well, I think a better solution would be to put both the alternative forms into the Alternative forms section of the Old French entry, and add a function to Module:descendants tree that grabs the alternative forms. Then, if you type {{desctree|fro|rober}}, it would display the alternative forms robber and robier along with rober. — Eru·tuon 14:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: I'm working on it now... It's kind of complicated, so my code might not even work. Take a look after I save it. — Eru·tuon 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Awesome! Yeah, you can probably just do a straight-up copy-paste of {{Module:descendants tree}}, have it look for ====Alternative forms=== instead, and some tweaks to the parsing code. --Victar (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The only caveat is that Alternative forms sections using {{l}} instead of {{alter}} will have to be corrected before the module can parse them. — Eru·tuon 15:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Hey, that's great! I knew it wouldn't be too hard. I was only vaguely aware of {{alter}}, so I'm happy to use it more often, though, why it wasn't named {{alt}}, I have no clue. Would it be possible to run a bot script on all existing {{desctree}} entries to add |noalt=1 so we don't have duplicate alternates listed before we clean-up and |notext=1 to disable the language name prefix I'm adding, so they aren't doubled? --Victar (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: I think there won't be duplicate alternative forms, because till now it has not been possible to show them while using {{desctree}}, which was one of the reasons why you started this thread. But the |notext=1 would be a good idea. The language name should be added by {{desctree}} rather than having to be typed out. — Eru·tuon 16:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Cool, well if you or someone else can run that bot, I'll add my changes from {{desctree2}}. --Victar (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: I don't have a bot, but @DTLHS might be able to help. — Eru·tuon 22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain explicitly what you want done? DTLHS (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Search for all usages of {{desctree}} and add |notext=1 to them all. Thanks for any help! --Victar (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @DTLHS: Now, would you be willing to run another set of edits removing the canonical_name: before {{desctree}}, and the |notext=1? — Eru·tuon 00:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon, could you have a look *barō? It looks like a nesting issue, or is it just old cache that hasn't worked it's way through? --Victar (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar It's not cache, because it remains when I edit the page. Yeah, it's a nesting issue, because baro uses {{desctree}}. It didn't crop up before? — Eru·tuon 00:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: No, no previous nesting issues. Must be due to some changes on my end. --Victar (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled why this solution was taken. An alternative could have been to make {{desctree}}only show descendants, and not show the link, leaving that to {{l}}. Then you'd be free to position it wherever you like. —CodeCat 01:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Until it doesn't work. There may be too many alternative forms, or there may be minor spelling variants that are not worth putting into a descendants section. That kind of judgement would formerly be done by editors, now that control is taken away. I don't think I'll be using the new desctree template, I liked it in its original form, before it did all these weird things and before it included the language name. —CodeCat 13:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Don't be such a sour-sport just because we changed your module. You can always use |notext=1 and you can create |noalts= to add your variants separate form what's in {{alter}}. The control is still in the editor's hands. --Victar (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not upset with people changing modules I created, as long as the changes are actually good. I don't think these are good. As I said, it should be made so that it showed only the descendants, allowing editors to remain free in how the descendants are shown. Also, {{desc}} is a pain for editors who want to edit existing descendants section, so integrating it into this template is also bad. —CodeCat 14:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be alone in that opinion. People seem to have taken a keen shining to {{desc}}. --Victar (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon, so, any idea how to start with getting |id= to work? For instances, I need to grab the descendants under Etymology 2 on this page through {{senseid|fro|ugly}}. --Victar (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon, JohnC5: I'm trying to get |id= to work by simply filtering out all content before the matching occurrence of {{senseid}}. Doesn't seem to be playing nicely though. --Victar (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: It's not that simple. Sense ids are typically in POS sections, and alternative forms sections are either before or after them. When they're before, they're either at the same section level as or one level higher than the POS section, but when they're after, they will be at one level lower. See the outlines I added in the box above. — Eru·tuon 17:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: It looks like what's happening the while below is expecting the whole page content but is freaking out when it can't find it; it being the language header. --Victar (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a good idea to fetch and show the qualifier when showing an alternative form, for example for Middle Persian we add the script / language variant as qualifier, e.g. in *ĉarHád-. --Z 06:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with |qn= being added, but not with the old parameter format being removed, as that would be a dramatic change and would require a lot of work, and I'm not sure it's necessary. — Eru·tuon 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon, JohnC5: I'd definitely want to eventually do away with current |4= mechanism, but I'd be happy to start with just adding |qN= for now. @Erutuon, The amount of work an improvement would take is irrelevant if there are people like myself who are willing to do it. =) --Victar (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Okay, so the amount of work isn't really a sufficient reason. It could be done by bot anyway. — Eru·tuon 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can a feature be added so that an edit link is shown to the right of a term if its descendants are listed on another page? A user should be able to click this link to edit the tree, without having to figure out what content is on which page. The edit link should be right aligned or not, depending on whether the user has this preference set for regular edit links. —CodeCat 22:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think by making it collapsible (similarly to how Module:family tree behaves), we would get the best of both worlds: the cleanliness of {{see desc}}, and the practicality of having all the descendants on a single page. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I see this has been suggested above, and that you (Victar) don't think it's a good idea. Too bad. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)